# What do we call these fucking people? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 22, 2001, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420 "2001-02-22T04:04:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/61 "2001-02-23T19:48:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diane \* > > \*\*Calling random names is a lot different than assigning a single title for a group of people, but I am sure you knew that. \*\* First of all, I question how random those names were. Truly “random” names would have meant some words which were not negative in connotation would have been likely to come up, and I don’t think that was going to happen. In fact, all of your characterizations were quite negative, and I will assume that this was intentional. Secondly, all you did was assign a BROAD label to these people, an umbrella so large that there’s room for a ton of people, many quite different from one another, under that umbrella term. You say “idiots,” and surely, a LOT of people can meet that particular label. I guess that I just prefer a label which is more descriptive, funnier and a but less broad than you do. But you labeled nonetheless. > [@](#): > > \*\*Do you not see how giving them this amount of attention is exactly what they look for? Why feed into their game? \*\* Why are you making the assumption that these people WANT attention, Diane? Has this been something that is agreed upon? I believe you’re mistaking these folks for trolls, and as I said, they’re NOT trolls. Hense this thread. I don’t think that the moon hoax guy just wants attention. Creationists simply want you to buy into anything which goes against evolution. I fear that you are not only upset for some reason at an attempt to name a type of poster, but compounding matters, you don’t even know who I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > \*\*Who will be in charge of the rule book? Can you call someone this “word-yet-to-be-decided-upon” because they don’t agree with you? Because they have some off the wall beliefs? Because they are obviously mentally ill? Because they are obsessed with foreskin? Because they won’t listen to reason? Because they refuse to stay on topic? Because they are bigots? Because they have a skewed view on poofed hair and perfumed crotches? Because they are simply seeing how much shit they can stir? Why not use some creativity in your insulting names instead of some generic title that will undoubtedly be misused, overused, and ultimately cause problems? \*\* When will Diane get a crowbar to remove whatever died out of her ass and lighten up? None of this matters. People will be free to call anyone anything they want. This is a thread to get some amusing ideas as to how to label a certain group of people. Most everyone who has responded knows EXACTLY what I am talking about (except for you, since you keep treating them as “trolls”), and I imagine that anyone who doesn’t particularly care simply is not responding to this thread. If you don’t want to play, I don’t recall holding you hostage. You want no part of it, feel free to leave the thread, thanks. You don’t want to call anyone ANYTHING (except for “idiots,” which you do like to label people as), I don’t believe anyone is making you. [quote] \*\*If they are an asshole, call them an asshole. If they are unreasonable, call them stupid. If they are idiots, flame them. If they are stirring the shit (trolling) email a mod. [quote] \*\* You’re LABELLING again… > [@](#): > > \*\*I know that I am not the only one who sees the difference, otherwise the Admins and Mods would have put a stop to all name calling instead of specifically prohibiting calling someone a “troll”. In fact, I’ll remind you of your very recent words. Just substitute the word “troll” with the “word-yet-to-be-decided-upon”. See my point? \*\* No, I don’t. For several reasons: First of all, as I said, this person is not a troll. Trolling is against the rules of this forum. Being this kind of person is not necessarily against the rules. Ergo, calling someone a Hydra is no different than calling someone a Creationist - descriptive, but not against the rules. Second of all, the thread yesterday was about a particular individual calling out a particular person. The mods have cracked down on this, needless to say. In this thread, I am talking about a group concept. I did use some posters who are active as examples of what I am talking about, but one of them in fact participated in this thread and did not take offense. In fact, he came up with his own ideas in the matter. And that all goes back to the first point: Trolling is against the rules. Hydra-planing (oh, did I just invent a word?) is not. It can LEAD to violations, as what happened with the penis guy, but the truth is he could have remained as he was before meltdown indefinitely and still retain posting priviledges. Disliked by many, purhaps. But not a rule breaker. Most people who posted seem to appreciate this for what it is: A fun thread to be creative in labelling a group of people who, in fact, have many defining characteristics. Most people got into the spirit of things. If you don’t see the fun in it, feel free to leave the thread. Otherwise, you might be confused with… _one of them!_😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2001, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/62 "2001-02-23T21:39:23Z")
> [@](#): > > First of all, I question how random those names were. . . . blah blah blah Please don’t make me explain to you again the difference between classification titles such as “troll”, “sock”, and “word-yet-to-be-decided-upon” are different than calling someone an “idiot” or “jackass”. Do you really not understand or are you just playing stupid? > [@](#): > > Why are you making the assumption that these people WANT attention, Diane? Has this been something that is agreed upon? I believe you’re mistaking these folks for trolls, and as I said, they’re NOT trolls. Hense this thread. Did I call anyone a troll? Am I alone in assuming these people want attention? Let’s ask Coldie, he seems to feel the same as I do, H-E-N-C-E, I am NOT alone in this thinking. If they didn’t want attention, would they continue posting their same old bullshit long after they have been stomped into the ground? Why the hell would I imagine they wanted attention? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I don’t think that the moon hoax guy just wants attention. > > Creationists simply want you to buy into anything which goes against evolution. So, you are saying that everyone who has beliefs different that you should be given a derogatory title. Cripes, what an ego you must have. FTR, I don’t believe in the great moon hoax and I am not a creationist. However, I don’t feel that those who believe differently should be strung out on a limb and whipped until convinced to think the same as I. > [@](#): > > I fear that you are not only upset for some reason at an attempt to name a type of poster, but compounding matters, you don’t even know who I’m talking about. Oh bullshit. I know exactly who and what you are talking about and before you pat yourself on the back too hard, know that it would take a lot more to get me “upset”, you know, like someone whose opinion mattered to me? Someone I respect. Someone who meant enough to me that they could upset me. I think the only thing you will accomplish by creating yet another title to be placed on some of the jackasses (OMG, I used a descriptive word!!) that post here, (1) is asking for the same problems we had with the word “troll”, (2) giving these people some sort of validation by the added attention, and (3) unnecessary. My personal opinion. Don’t like it? Tough shit. > [@](#): > > When will Diane get a crowbar to remove whatever died out of her ass and lighten up? Ummmmm, I don’t think it is me who is/was in danger of having something stuck up the ass. > [@](#): > > Most everyone who has responded knows EXACTLY what I am talking about (except for you, since you keep treating them as “trolls”) I mistakenly gave you more credit than I should have as far as reading comprehension. Not once have I treated them as trolls. What I did is remind you of the problems this board has had in the past with labels such as “troll” and “sock”. I don’t see how your new title could be any different. As with the other two, the new title will be tossed around prematurely and unfairly and give these people some sort of validation for their actions. I have yet to see anything you have written to convince me otherwise. > [@](#): > > and I imagine that anyone who doesn’t particularly care simply is not responding to this thread. Well no shit. And this is different than any other thread, how? > [@](#): > > If you don’t want to play, I don’t recall holding you hostage. You want no part of it, feel free to leave the thread, thanks. You don’t want to call anyone ANYTHING (except for “idiots,” which you do like to label people as), I don’t believe anyone is making you. Ya know, we should create a title for those who post on a public message board and then stomp their feet and cry when someone has the :::gulp::: nerve to come in and voice an opinion that is different. > [@](#): > > You’re LABELLING again… You’ve played that card already and it still hasn’t won the hand. I’ll tell ya what, why don’t you ask Ed why the accusations of someone being a troll has been prohibited but not calling someone an “idiot” or another variety of names (in the PIT). Maybe he can make it sink into your fat skull. > [@](#): > > First of all, as I said, this person is not a troll. Yeah, and I too said this person is not a troll or did you miss that? > [@](#): > > Trolling is against the rules of this forum. Being this kind of person is not necessarily against the rules. Ergo, calling someone a Hydra is no different than calling someone a Creationist - descriptive, but not against the rules. > > Second of all, the thread yesterday was about a particular individual calling out a particular person. The mods have cracked down on this, needless to say. In this thread, I am talking about a group concept. Exactly, but how long until your use of this new word starts causing the same problems as the group concept of “troll” accusations? How long before we start seeing the new version of “DNFTT”? FYI, I don’t feel that I need to explain how calling a Creationist, a Creationist, is not insulting, but calling someone your new inflammatory word would be. Most of us with more than two brain cells can already understand without me going over it again. > [@](#): > > And that all goes back to the first point: Trolling is against the rules. Yeah, no shit. Your point? > [@](#): > > Hydra-planing (oh, did I just invent a word?) is not. It can LEAD to violations, as what happened with the penis guy, but the truth is he could have remained as he was before meltdown indefinitely and still retain posting priviledges. Disliked by many, purhaps. But not a rule breaker. Please explain how your proposal could have prevented penis guy from being banned? > [@](#): > > If you don’t see the fun in it, feel free to leave the thread. Otherwise, you might be confused with… one of them! If you can’t accept that I (or anyone else) has the right to think your OP sucks shit and aren’t afraid to voice an opinion saying so, feel free to leave the thread. Otherwise, continue to stomp your feet and pout and I can assure you there will be no confusing you with. . . . . one of them! ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/63 "2001-02-24T00:22:40Z")
You are right about one thing though: I shouldn’t respond to those who are just craving the attention. ---
**Author:** ![Silo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@Silo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silo)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/64 "2001-02-24T01:26:22Z")
Granted I’ll admit there are some truely ignorant people that post here from time to time. While on the flipside, there are people that _pretend_ to be truely ignorant. Sometimes the latter two _are_ hard to distinguish. But why waste your time with either of them? I know the underlying theme of this board is to fight ignorance. But when extreme ignorance is encountered, isn’t the end result of fighting it (usually) just a mere exercise in futility? ---
**Author:** ![Bboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@Bboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bboy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/65 "2001-02-24T01:28:37Z")
> [@](#): > > **You’re a humorless twat, Diane.** ``` ...*Nice.* ``` It’s a clear sign that someone’s argument has run out of _substance_ when they resort to name calling. Z’at the best you can do _ **Satan?** _ ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/66 "2001-02-24T03:23:53Z")
Ummm…I thought the whole point of this thread was name-calling. ---
**Author:** ![Yue\_Han](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eada6e/32.png) [@Yue\_Han](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yue_Han)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/67 "2001-02-24T04:10:11Z")
Um, yeah, it’s kind of hard to be reduced to name calling in the Pit. You start at name calling and work your way down. Miscellaneous notes: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## When will Diane get a crowbar to remove whatever died out of her ass and lighten up? > > Ummmmm, I don’t think it is me who is/was in danger of having something stuck up the ass. It makes me sad that there is such a high turnover that I would bet that less then 10% of the active posters have any idea what the hell Diane is talking about. It also makes me sad that Diane would post such a lame non sequiter. It further makes me sad that Satan would walk right into that one like that. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Hydra-planing (oh, did I just invent a word?) is not. It can LEAD to violations, as what happened with the penis guy, but the truth is he could have remained as he was before meltdown indefinitely and still retain posting priviledges. Disliked by many, purhaps. But not a rule breaker. > > Please explain how your proposal could have prevented penis guy from being banned? He did not in fact say that his proposal would have. Calling people a troll is not allowed because trolling is against the rules, and thus investigating them is to be left to the mods. Being what Satan is calling a ‘hydra’ is not against the rules. It’s pretty annoying, but it won’t get you banned. That was his point about JDT; that he was banned not for his debate style but for other egregious misbehavior. And to make things clear, and check my own understanding: A _hydra_ would be a poster who will not concede an argument after his/her assertions have been disproved. Instead, they continuously churn up new faulty assertions, often ones that make the same mistaken assumptions. Of course, to a limited extent, everyone involved in a debate does this, depending on your perspectives. This term would only apply to people like **Jack Dean Tyler** and **Phaedrus** , who’s obstinance spawns lengthy threads featuring a reasonably high fraction of the Board endlessly cutting down mistaken notions, only to see them replaced by even more. Or am I mistaken somewhere in that? –John ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/68 "2001-02-24T04:58:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Yue Han_ > \*\*A _hydra_ would be a poster who will not concede an argument after his/her assertions have been disproved. Instead, they continuously churn up new faulty assertions, often ones that make the same mistaken assumptions. Of course, to a limited extent, everyone involved in a debate does this, depending on your perspectives. This term would only apply to people like Jack Dean Tyler and Phaedrus, who’s obstinance spawns lengthy threads featuring a reasonably high fraction of the Board endlessly cutting down mistaken notions, only to see them replaced by even more. > > Or am I mistaken somewhere in that?\*\* No, you got it right. I think that the thread which inspired my suggestion of “hydra” in the first place would be a good, if relatively mild, introduction to this sort of behavior. [The most inherant;ly cruel race?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57687) It’s only 2 pages long and doesn’t feature much science, so it’s a _relatively_ quick read for those unsure of the kind of material being referred to. At first, it seems like a normal debate on a rather, um, “unusual” topic (the OP asserts that “Orientals” are more innately cruel than the “other 3 races”), but it quickly devolves from there. The second page is especially full of the OP trying to explain away all the pesky facts that get in the way of his assertion. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/69 "2001-02-24T06:29:03Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s a clear sign that someone’s argument has run out of substance when they resort to name calling. It’s a clear sign that someone’s argument has run out of substance when they… well… don’t have any argument. 'Zat the best you can do, Little _ **Bboy** _? Or are you just gonna pretend to be a hotshot to cover up the fact that you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/70 "2001-02-24T12:03:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly \* > We don’t need Satan to tell us what facts are valid and invalid. Common sense tells us that. Check your Ouija board, SPOOFE. The spirits of Einstein, Cantor, Gödel, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger want to have a word with you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/71 "2001-02-24T12:25:39Z")
Why give them a name? Because naming things allows us to get a handle on them. If you can put a name on something, you don’t have to _define_ it all over again, every time the subject comes up, and you have some energy left for whatever point you were going to make about the thing you’ve named. My problems with ‘hydra’: the hydra of mythology was a multi-headed beast, while a lot of these characters (JDT, the moon guy, FoG) are one-trick ponies. It’s a bad fit, IMO. Why I like ‘Pod People’: Satan used the term “Pod People” toward the bottom of the first page, and it immediately made sense to me. > [@](#): > > See, they come in and act like they know what’s going on. They complete sentences with minimal grammer and punctuation mistakes. They seem to be aware of vB coding, and that it’s their friend. They might even come off as cordial, playful in fact. They actually look like… one of us! > [snip] > Only after several exchanges does it begin to slowly dawn on us… THEY ARE NOT ONE OF US! They are… **Pod People**. They duped us into treating them like normal people, so we start having discussions with them. Debates. Generally try and act like everything is cool. And it is civil… for a while… > > Finally, about a dozen or posts in, the cracks begin to show. But by then, you are already in the process of a discussion with this individual, so when the manipulation, lying, misunderstandings and sudden inability to get a point achnowledged comes around, you’re in too deep to get out. Bolding mine. The Pod People of _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ describe precisely the concept we’re trying to name here. As Brian has already said, they seem like us at first, but by the time you’ve put your finger on what makes them different, it’s practically too late. So that’s my nonination: Pod People. ---
**Author:** ![Diane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2acd7d/32.png) [@Diane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diane)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/72 "2001-02-24T14:31:27Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s a clear sign that someone’s argument has run out of substance when they resort to name calling. Yes, but expected from him. I almost feel disappointed that he didn’t call me a cunt, being the classy guy that he is. > [@](#): > > It makes me sad that there is such a high turnover that I would bet that less then 10% of the active posters have any idea what the hell Diane is talking about. > > It also makes me sad that Diane would post such a lame non sequiter. > > It further makes me sad that Satan would walk right into that one like that. Aw come on John, cheer up. It was kind of lame of me, but hell, he made it just too easy and my resistance level was a little low at the time. > [@](#): > > Or am I mistaken somewhere in that? Not really, but read every word in each and every one of my posts in this thread. You will see that: (1) I KNOW that trolling is against the rules. (2) I KNOW that not all of those mentioned in the OP are considered trolls. (3) My PERSONAL OPINION is that giving these people a title will somehow validate their existence and actions in their minds. (4) I PERSONALLY believe that creating yet another title along, BUT NOT synonymous to, “troll” and “sock” will eventually cause the same types of problems these two have caused in the past. I agree that there are those who would truly deserve your title, but how soon until it gets tossed around prematurely and unfairly like happened with the accusation of “troll”? (5) That I really DON’T give a flying rats hairy ass whether or not Satan likes my opinion of the OP. I read the OP, this is how I feel, don’t like it? Tough shit. (6) That the hypocrisy of the OP compared to the rest of the thread had been quite amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Bboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@Bboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bboy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/73 "2001-02-24T17:15:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*'Zat the best you can do, Little Bboy? Or are you just gonna pretend to be a hotshot to cover up the fact that you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about? \*\* Yeah, that must be it. :::rolling eyes::: No hotshot here. Someone else got the best of you with a better argument, and you, when cornered, took a cheap shot. Inserting the ‘Little’ in front of my handle illustrates the point nicely. I am not impressed or intimidated by someone who argues like an adolescent. If you want credibility, that’s no way to conduct yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Bboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@Bboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bboy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/74 "2001-02-24T17:35:27Z")
**SPOOFE, I owe you an apology.** I responded too quickly. I must retract the comment about being cornered, and taking a cheap shot. I thought I was responding to Satan. Of course, once I hit the submit button, it was too late to correct. Sorry about that. -_Foul on Bboy._ ---
**Author:** ![Bboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@Bboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bboy)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/75 "2001-02-24T18:56:38Z")
…INRE the OP, You already have a name for the offense. If you want to put a name on the offender, how about a nice acronym? **LOSER** - **L** ogs **O** n **S** imply(to) **E** voke **R** ivalry ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/76 "2001-02-24T20:30:46Z")
I like “Pod People” too. (The name, I mean, not the category of posters.) Anybody remember ol’ **Tom Dark**? Pod to the max… ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/77 "2001-02-24T21:20:32Z")
Okay, so in spite of the fact I wasn’t suggesting any names myself, it seems that my off-the-cuff reference to **Pod People** is gaining some support! Go figure! Okay, so far the following have received some support: [ul] [li]Brick Walls[/li][li]Clueless Legions of Duh (C.L.O.D.s for short)[/li][li]Hydras[/li][li]Pod People[/ul][/li]Anyone else have any bright ideas? Some support to any of the above? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/78 "2001-02-24T21:45:02Z")
I’ll take CloD for $200, Monty. Let’s make a decision quick; considering some of the sniping that’s gone on in this thread, we’re gonna need that term ASAP. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2001, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/79 "2001-02-24T23:11:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I responded too quickly. > I must retract the comment about being cornered, and taking a cheap shot. Consarnit! And I was all set to flame you, too!! Damn, damn, damn! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2001, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420/80 "2001-02-25T00:32:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diane \* > **(4) I PERSONALLY believe that creating yet another title along, BUT NOT synonymous to, “troll” and “sock” will eventually cause the same types of problems these two have caused in the past. I agree that there are those who would truly deserve your title, but how soon until it gets tossed around prematurely and unfairly like happened with the accusation of “troll”?** A-fucking-men. We don’t need witch hunts. We don’t need labels. “Troll” and “sock” don’t cover every prick that tries to spoil our fun here. So what? What is this, **Message Board Anthropology 101**? I’d say the important thing is that these message boards are populated by people of various backgrounds, religion, race, political conviction, taste in music, willingness to accept foreign objects up their rectum, _what have you_. And the second most important thing would be to rid the boards of idjits that threaten that balance of diversity by causing havoc, picking fights, or being disrespectful to anyone else. _It does not matter if a poster is an ass right off the bat, or if he **becomes** one after 18 months of peaceful posting_. Jerks must, and will be, tossed out. And we’ve got the right team of people to do so. All efforts by posters to aid us with that are _really_ and I mean **really** appreciated. The “heads-up” e-mails we receive from time to time are a great help. But bringing this sort of thing to the boards, while entertaining to some (yes, some of the descriptive titles are certainly humourous), does not serve the boards. Agreed, it’s not the same as calling someone a troll or a sock on the boards. And there’s no rule against the type of OP Satan started. But I personally consider it counterproductive nonetheless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-call-these-fucking-people/55420.md?page=5)